Along with the portion of tonight's City Council meeting being devoted to the airspace issues, the Council may also witness a visit to its chambers by Dr. Michael Brophy, President of Marymount College.
One of the reasons Dr. Brophy is going to talk at the Council (I know it should be 'talk to the council, but Michael has demonstrated time and time again that he talks 'at' them rather than 'to' them and really takes many opportunities to muddy the waters of discussion, in my opinion.) about two upcoming evenings where the College will discuss becoming a four-year institution and its "Catholic mission."
I think everyone who is concerned about the safety of our roadways, airspace and the residents and others in our community, should attend tonight's meeting and offer their opinion, no matter what it is.
____________________________________________
For me it is a regular Napoleon over a cannoli that treat my taste buds more. A crispy is also something that is enjoyed, but it and just about everything else at Amalfitano Bakery is not really a good part of my menu plan.
We have finally figured out how to deal with the Banana Whip Cream cake we will soon buy.
The smallest one they sell is 8 inches in diameter. We have decided to cut a portion out of the cake for ourselves and then have our next door neighbors, one mom, one pop, one son, and twin girls enjoy the rest. It really is the best way to have our cake and let others enjoy the rest.
___________________________________________
Looking into my crystal ball I either see another complaint or lawsuit filed by representatives of Marymount College over the placement of No on P signs on public property or a bunch of newly arrived Yes on P signs next to No on P signs, again on public property.
The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, voting as representatives of the residential public of the city, voted to oppose Measure P, The Marymount Plan.
I don't see anything wrong with having No on P signs posted on public property within R.P.V. because our representatives voted to oppose is, even though I know there are members of the public residing in R.P.V. that support The Marymount Plan.
If Yes on P signs show up on public lands, then that is evidence to me, of a certain amount of hypocrisy by Dr. Brophy and possibly other supporters because of Dr. Brophy's concerns about No on P signs now apparently to him and others, placed on public property.
If Dr. Brophy and others believe it is wrong to have No on P signs on public property is stands to reason that he and the others would understand that "two wrongs don't make a right" and there will no be Yes on P signs appearing on public property.
Fat chance!
Also, Dr. Brophy is concerned about the financing of the yard signs and the financing of Save Our City III and possibly other groups opposing Measure P.
Allow me to help you, Dr. Brophy.
I oppose Measure P because it is, except for one construction issue and the campus specific plan issue completely redundant to what is already new municipal codes allowing The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project going forward, and I have not and will not take even one penny of outside financing to help oppose Measure P.
As so many have worn buttons I created for issues relating to Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the redevelopment of the old McCowan's Market properties near 20th and Walker in San Pedro, as well as buttons I created and donated for a yearly benefit for the Cabrillo Aquarium, I continue to pay for everything myself and receive no payment, honorarium, or reimbursement of any monies for the buttons I produce.
I have provided information and funds to Save Our City III even though I have other reasons for opposing Measure P than both Save Our City III has or even the reasons Mayor Pro Tem Long has.
I also consider some wording in a recent communication to be not simply a veiled threat, but because many of your concerns have turned into letters by attorneys and even a lawsuit.
Trusting what you say in public and write in private is something I have plenty of evidence is not something I am able to do.
____________________________________________
I am still more than pleased that our own Starlight Cinemas on Western Avenue continue with their fantastic pricing structure.
I want every resident of R.P. V. to enjoy at least one movie at that 6-screen theatre on the top level of The Terraces, every month.
Please also tell your friends and residents of other communities to sit in the new seats, all having a real abundance of legroom, to visit the theatre and watch first-run movies in an all-digital format, with some being 3-D.
____________________________________________
What's this? An Auto Dealership in Rancho Palos Verdes? YES!
I know of one and when I learn more about it, I will post more information.
I can tell you that you don't see lots of cars on a 'lot' with banners, placards, streamers, flags, and pesky sales persons hounding potential buyers.
It is the sort of dealership that should be expected in our city.
With each individual sale from the dealership, it could provide sales tax revenue our city needs.
____________________________________________
Wednesday September 8, 2010
Department 86, Judge David Yaffe
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles Superior Court.
Judge Yaffe will hear arguments on both lawsuits filed concerning Arguments of ballot Measure P and has stated that he will make his ruling in time to get the ballot arguments to the printer, later on Wednesday.
Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, myself, and others are also hoping that Judge Yaffe will rule on the language contained in The Marymount Plan and/or the wording of the measures legal documentation as to whether, in his opinion, Marymount's 'campus specif plan' includes or does not include wording that would allow Marymount's representative to administer codes, rules, and guidelines that would supersede existing municipal codes, guidelines and regulations and whether that power would only be held by the business entity commonly known as Marymount College of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I fully expect that should Judge Yaffe rule against Marymount representatives' position, they may attempt to quickly take the matters to a higher court on appeal.
I also think, should Marymount's position not be ruled correct by Judge Yaffe, Marymount representatives might try to remove Measure P from consideration by voters on November 2 and that they will go back, and try to have the matter decided with a special election which they would probably not pay the entire cost for it, unlike what they have pledged to do with the November 2, vote.
No matter what happens tomorrow, November 2, or any other 'major' date, for anyone to expect that one or more parties won't head to a courtroom to seek relief because they didn't agree with a decision rendered by a judge, voters, or anyone else.
I guess we can envision that it won't be over until "the fat lady sings" and that female is currently a very thin elementary school student.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment